The left are absolutely hell bent on stopping Priti Patel from being next PM aren't they.
Nope - in the private sector her behaviour would have had her fired immediately.
I don't think it would have in the NHS, but there would be a formal warning, and a package of behaviour agreements such that if there was a similar incident it would be a clearcut legal dismissal.
Northern Ireland going into two week lockdown but schools remaining open
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
I fear the big Christmas relaxation will turn into the a similar disaster to the big summer vacation relaxation.
With 2, more than likely 3 vaccines basically ready to roll, can't we all just wait a few more months did granny has had her shot.
Yep. Minimalist Christmas this year. Just the 5 of us and toast the grandparents on Zoom. It is too risky to do much else on current numbers.
With Thanksgiving next weekend giving us an indication.
I honestly don't get it. Yes of course we all want to see loved ones, but one day isn't that important when we know in 2-3 months we will be able to without fear of killing them off.
Not a chance on earth I've gone nine months and would now visit my grandparents prior to then being vaccinated.
It'd be like deliberately and voluntarily going over the top in 1918. Or sending them over the top.
Nobody in the private sector has ever received a warning before? 🤔
Sure, but this does open up all sort of exciting new possibilities under the law - e.g., unintentional intimidation, accidental harrassment, not-very-grievous bodily harm.
Lawyers are going to have a field day, not to mention some of their clients.
After failing repeatedly in court to overturn election results, President Trump is taking the extraordinary step of reaching out directly to Republican state legislators as he tries to subvert the Electoral College process, inviting Michigan lawmakers to meet with him at the White House on Friday.
NYTimes blog
Problem is, that while the Michigan legislature has the right to change the way Electors are appointed, as per the Constitution, the current process whereby the state's Electors are chosen by popular vote is enshrined in state law (as it is in every state). To change this would itself require an act of the legislature. Even leaving aside the fact that the US Constitution forbids ex post facto laws at both federal and state level, so such a change could not come into effect until 2024, the Republicans do not have a supermajority in either chamber. The Democratic governor of Michigan therefore can, and undoubtably will, veto any such attempt.
Not that I think the GOP will even try: right now the legislators are probably having a heated argument about exactly who gets the unenviable job of breaking the news that Steiner's offensive didn't take place to the Fuhrer.
I think we have had this one before (and I had a feisty debate with @SirNorfolkPassmore who disagrees) - the wording from the Supreme Court case in 2000 of Bush and Gore states that state legislatures cannot actually give away that power and so can take it back. So, technically, they can.
Cue reaction......
Yes, absolutely they can take it back whenever they want, but the mechanism is what matters here. Now, if the legislatures had by a simple resolution said that the people of the state appoint the state's electors, you might have a point, but no state did that: AIUI every state has enacted primary legislation to delegate the choice of electors to the people, along with boring details about exactly how the process is to be conducted. That means that if a state legislature wants to change its mind, as the Constitution allows, only primary legislation can effect that change. That means that a) the state governor has to sign the legislation into law, or be overriden by a supermajority in both houses, and b) the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto legislation applies.
Cheers @rpjs - and @rcs1000 - very useful and informative as ever. Where I’m getting confused is that my understand was that, while the legislatures may have passed this legislation, it was effectively meaningless because the legislatures did not have the authority to delegate the power even if they made a law saying they had.
I guess it all depends on what one means by "delegate". I think you are taking it as meaning the legislatures are surrendering their power to decide how electors are appointed to the people. I would say that it means that they are allowing the people to exercise the appointing power on the legislature's behalf. I certainly agree with you that the legislatures cannot permanently give up that power to the people, but I would argue that they are not so doing: they are merely "loaning" it to the people and can take it back. But then, the method by which they loan it and take it back is what becomes important, and my argument is that because they loaned their power to the people by law, they can only take it back by law too.
Heard Obama interview on R4 this morning. It made be all nostalgic for the days when we had politicians capable of being articulate and thinking in complete sentences. The man wasn't a great success as President, he achieved far less than might have been hoped, but my goodness can he speak.
Northern Ireland going into two week lockdown but schools remaining open
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
I fear the big Christmas relaxation will turn into the a similar disaster to the big summer vacation relaxation.
With 2, more than likely 3 vaccines basically ready to roll, can't we all just wait a few more months did granny has had her shot.
Yep. Minimalist Christmas this year. Just the 5 of us and toast the grandparents on Zoom. It is too risky to do much else on current numbers.
With Thanksgiving next weekend giving us an indication.
I honestly don't get it. Yes of course we all want to see loved ones, but one day isn't that important when we know in 2-3 months we will be able to without fear of killing them off.
Everyone I know says they're sick of hearing about Christmas and are happy to have a quiet week off.
I suspect, that like foreign holidays in the summer, the irresponsible are going to ignore restrictions before, during and after Christmas.
Northern Ireland going into two week lockdown but schools remaining open
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
I fear the big Christmas relaxation will turn into the a similar disaster to the big summer vacation relaxation.
With 2, more than likely 3 vaccines basically ready to roll, can't we all just wait a few more months did granny has had her shot.
Yep. Minimalist Christmas this year. Just the 5 of us and toast the grandparents on Zoom. It is too risky to do much else on current numbers.
With Thanksgiving next weekend giving us an indication.
I honestly don't get it. Yes of course we all want to see loved ones, but one day isn't that important when we know in 2-3 months we will be able to without fear of killing them off.
Not a chance on earth I've gone nine months and would now visit my grandparents prior to then being vaccinated.
It'd be like deliberately and voluntarily going over the top in 1918. Or sending them over the top.
An elderly cousin of my mother's died recently. I have been going through the family papers. There is a pro-forma form letter from the War Office to a wife of another relative. He was badly wounded on 9 November 1918. He did survive ...
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
So in your world only the Jews care about perceived anti-semitism in the Labour Party.
Not sure how you're getting that. I'm not a Jew, for example, and I care about both perceived and actual antisemitism in the Labour Party. The actual because it's an abomination, even when it's not perceived, and the perceived because it hits the Labour vote, even when it's not actual.
The fight (over Corbyn) as you see it is between the left and the Jewish community.
In the sense of the post I wrote, yes. He's a symbol - of reassurance about radicalism for the one and distrust about antisemitism for the other. I'm honestly not seeing what you're getting at.
The corbynite left wingery is as much of a problem for a lot of floating voters as the anti semitism. I wouldn't consider voting labour as long as the corbynite tendency remains in labour as a force. Frankly I wouldn't trust them not to after labour is elected with a moderate leader not to stage a party coup and install corbyn mk II. Especially as they only need 20% of mp's now to launch such a coup
Heard Obama interview on R4 this morning. It made be all nostalgic for the days when we had politicians capable of being articulate and thinking in complete sentences. The man wasn't a great success as President, he achieved far less than might have been hoped, but my goodness can he speak.
He lacked executive experience, and was unfortunate in his later years in office to be obstructed by a particularly dogmatic Senate.
But yes, great speaker, and a man of goodwill and intelligence.
Nobody in the private sector has ever received a warning before? 🤔
Sure, but this does open up all sort of exciting new possibilities under the law - e.g., unintentional intimidation, accidental harrassment, not-very-grievous bodily harm.
Lawyers are going to have a field day, not to mention some of their clients.
Surely the whole concept of having a warning is already for this very purpose?
The idea that it's either immediate dismissal or nothing is a very warped conceit.
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
So in your world only the Jews care about perceived anti-semitism in the Labour Party.
Not sure how you're getting that. I'm not a Jew, for example, and I care about both perceived and actual antisemitism in the Labour Party. The actual because it's an abomination, even when it's not perceived, and the perceived because it hits the Labour vote, even when it's not actual.
The fight (over Corbyn) as you see it is between the left and the Jewish community.
In the sense of the post I wrote, yes. He's a symbol - of reassurance about radicalism for the one and distrust about antisemitism for the other. I'm honestly not seeing what you're getting at.
If the price of removing Johnson is ditching Corbyn - would you pay?
I don't know if my parents are typical, but when I said its great once you had your jabs you will be able to come and visit...to which they replied we are off abroad for several months, I am more than welcome to visit them there.
Heard Obama interview on R4 this morning. It made be all nostalgic for the days when we had politicians capable of being articulate and thinking in complete sentences. The man wasn't a great success as President, he achieved far less than might have been hoped, but my goodness can he speak.
He lacked executive experience, and was unfortunate in his later years in office to be obstructed by a particularly dogmatic Senate.
But yes, great speaker, and a man of goodwill and intelligence.
I think that the lack of executive experience was key. It always amazes me that so few of the front runners for the nomination in either party tend be governors or ex governors. So much better training for the job than a senator.
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
When it comes to it, if people think Indy will result in higher taxes/reduced services, the current enthusiasm will drain away somewhat. Simples. There really is not much of an answer to questions like the currency and the deficit. Covid and Nicola's management of it is dominating perceptions. Won't be like that for ever.
Idly hypothesising why folk will still vote No in any indy referendum while happily applauding a despised Tory pm for being too cowardly to give Scots the chance to put it to the test is quite a thing.
Sturgeon would never call a vote if all the polls showed she was bound to lose and it was her right (not Westminster's) to withhold that vote - and she would do this even if Scots wanted a vote.
It's just realpolitik. No politician will call an epochal plebisicite which they will very likely lose, thus ending their careers.
So cut the cant. Boris is doing what any politician would do, including any Nat. He will drag it out til 2024, then the Nats need the Labour party to win - weakly - and accede to indyref2. That scenario seems quite likely.
Hypotheisising about Sturgeon having the 'right' to decide on a vote is it? Your standard tin-eared blethers about Scotland ignore the fact Sturgeon fully supported a vote when indy was very much likely to lose, and so it transpired.
It's obvious you lads are reduced to obfuscating with suppositions and what ifs because you've no other defence left. Though there's always the HYUFD option of getting the Black & Tans II in and truncheoning grannies I guess.
Northern Ireland going into two week lockdown but schools remaining open
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
I fear the big Christmas relaxation will turn into the a similar disaster to the big summer vacation relaxation.
With 2, more than likely 3 vaccines basically ready to roll, can't we all just wait a few more months did granny has had her shot.
Yep. Minimalist Christmas this year. Just the 5 of us and toast the grandparents on Zoom. It is too risky to do much else on current numbers.
With Thanksgiving next weekend giving us an indication.
I honestly don't get it. Yes of course we all want to see loved ones, but one day isn't that important when we know in 2-3 months we will be able to without fear of killing them off.
Everyone I know says they're sick of hearing about Christmas and are happy to have a quiet week off.
I suspect, that like foreign holidays in the summer, the irresponsible are going to ignore restrictions before, during and after Christmas.
I think for most it will be a quiet one. It is going to be devastating for both retail and hospitality though. They need a good Christmas to pay the Q1 rent.
It has to be said though that most countries are finding lockdown II a lot less effective than lockdown 1 including our own. After 3 weeks of lockdown these are pretty modest falls compared with what happened in most countries in April. Compliance is now a real issue.
Nobody in the private sector has ever received a warning before? 🤔
Sure, but this does open up all sort of exciting new possibilities under the law - e.g., unintentional intimidation, accidental harrassment, not-very-grievous bodily harm.
Lawyers are going to have a field day, not to mention some of their clients.
Surely the whole concept of having a warning is already for this very purpose?
The idea that it's either immediate dismissal or nothing is a very warped conceit.
Not at all. At least in the public sector some behaviour would lead to instant dismissal.
"I do want to emphasise that I’m in the business of testing for Covid. I do want to emphasise that positive test results do not – underlined in neon – mean a clinical infection. It’s simply driving public hysteria and all testing should stop unless you’re presenting to hospital with some respiratory problem."
Dr Roger Hodkinson, medical specialist in pathology
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
When it comes to it, if people think Indy will result in higher taxes/reduced services, the current enthusiasm will drain away somewhat. Simples. There really is not much of an answer to questions like the currency and the deficit. Covid and Nicola's management of it is dominating perceptions. Won't be like that for ever.
Idly hypothesising why folk will still vote No in any indy referendum while happily applauding a despised Tory pm for being too cowardly to give Scots the chance to put it to the test is quite a thing.
Sturgeon would never call a vote if all the polls showed she was bound to lose and it was her right (not Westminster's) to withhold that vote - and she would do this even if Scots wanted a vote.
It's just realpolitik. No politician will call an epochal plebisicite which they will very likely lose, thus ending their careers.
So cut the cant. Boris is doing what any politician would do, including any Nat. He will drag it out til 2024, then the Nats need the Labour party to win - weakly - and accede to indyref2. That scenario seems quite likely.
Hypotheisising about Sturgeon having the 'right' to decide on a vote is it? Your standard tin-eared blethers about Scotland ignore the fact Sturgeon fully supported a vote when indy was very much likely to lose, and so it transpired.
It's obvious you lads are reduced to obfuscating with suppositions and what ifs because you've no other defence left. Though there's always the HYUFD option of getting the Black & Tans II in and truncheoning grannies I guess.
None of this blethering refutes the fact that I am right. And you know it. HMG will refuse indyref2 until 2024
Heard Obama interview on R4 this morning. It made be all nostalgic for the days when we had politicians capable of being articulate and thinking in complete sentences. The man wasn't a great success as President, he achieved far less than might have been hoped, but my goodness can he speak.
Yes, I watched it last night. Have to agree he is a smooth talker
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
So in your world only the Jews care about perceived anti-semitism in the Labour Party.
Not sure how you're getting that. I'm not a Jew, for example, and I care about both perceived and actual antisemitism in the Labour Party. The actual because it's an abomination, even when it's not perceived, and the perceived because it hits the Labour vote, even when it's not actual.
The fight (over Corbyn) as you see it is between the left and the Jewish community.
In the sense of the post I wrote, yes. He's a symbol - of reassurance about radicalism for the one and distrust about antisemitism for the other. I'm honestly not seeing what you're getting at.
If the price of removing Johnson is ditching Corbyn - would you pay?
Oh yes. But I'm not convinced about that.
I mean even if it only increases the odds by 10%, is it still worth it?
"I do want to emphasise that I’m in the business of testing for Covid. I do want to emphasise that positive test results do not – underlined in neon – mean a clinical infection. It’s simply driving public hysteria and all testing should stop unless you’re presenting to hospital with some respiratory problem."
Dr Roger Hodkinson, medical specialist in pathology
(Quoted on lockdownsceptics)
Bloody idiots.
This false negative bullshit is so patently false why I they still sharing it?
Public hysteria is happening because hospitals are getting flooded and hundreds a day are dying. Not because of testing numbers. Muppets.
The left are absolutely hell bent on stopping Priti Patel from being next PM aren't they.
Is that really such a bad idea?
Yes. You'd rather have Raab?
Rishi, Truss and Patel are three I'd be happiest seeing PM.
I would rather have a competent, business-oriented, one-nation conservatives than any of those three dolts.
I would have said that Rishi at least is all of those.
A Brexciter by definition can't be a one-nation conservative, unless one is a Little Englander, surely.
Interested in your comments on Mr Gove by the way. Exactly why I was unsure how he was regarded by the public till I found that survey data. He does have something between his ears which is actually connected to his larynx.
It's just realpolitik. No politician will call an epochal plebisicite which they will very likely lose, thus ending their careers.
Hi LadyG it's David Cameron here.
Cameron thought he would win 70/30 and he told EU leaders this. He was supremely arrogant and complacent. And here we are.
One of the young lads I played cricket with turned out to be a civil servant - he said when they told Cameron that Remain might be in trouble, he just laughed as if it were out of the question
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
When it comes to it, if people think Indy will result in higher taxes/reduced services, the current enthusiasm will drain away somewhat. Simples. There really is not much of an answer to questions like the currency and the deficit. Covid and Nicola's management of it is dominating perceptions. Won't be like that for ever.
Idly hypothesising why folk will still vote No in any indy referendum while happily applauding a despised Tory pm for being too cowardly to give Scots the chance to put it to the test is quite a thing.
Sturgeon would never call a vote if all the polls showed she was bound to lose and it was her right (not Westminster's) to withhold that vote - and she would do this even if Scots wanted a vote.
It's just realpolitik. No politician will call an epochal plebisicite which they will very likely lose, thus ending their careers.
So cut the cant. Boris is doing what any politician would do, including any Nat. He will drag it out til 2024, then the Nats need the Labour party to win - weakly - and accede to indyref2. That scenario seems quite likely.
Hypotheisising about Sturgeon having the 'right' to decide on a vote is it? Your standard tin-eared blethers about Scotland ignore the fact Sturgeon fully supported a vote when indy was very much likely to lose, and so it transpired.
It's obvious you lads are reduced to obfuscating with suppositions and what ifs because you've no other defence left. Though there's always the HYUFD option of getting the Black & Tans II in and truncheoning grannies I guess.
None of this blethering refutes the fact that I am right. And you know it. HMG will refuse indyref2 until 2024
When, given the way the Tories are performing, it will be 80% for independence.
The left are absolutely hell bent on stopping Priti Patel from being next PM aren't they.
Is that really such a bad idea?
Yes. You'd rather have Raab?
Rishi, Truss and Patel are three I'd be happiest seeing PM.
I would rather have a competent, business-oriented, one-nation conservatives than any of those three dolts.
I would have said that Rishi at least is all of those.
I understand where you are coming from, but at the minute he is simply hosing money around, something incompetent Labour Chancellors used to do so it is not really that much of a skill.
However, he has allowed himself to be associated with Johnson and the incompetent-but-loyal brigade, so on that basis Sunak will either do anything to get promoted or Johnson knows Sunak has little ability and is no threat.
Tarnish by association, but they do say that you can judge character by friends someone keeps.......
It has to be said though that most countries are finding lockdown II a lot less effective than lockdown 1 including our own. After 3 weeks of lockdown these are pretty modest falls compared with what happened in most countries in April. Compliance is now a real issue.
I’m not sure it’s compliance, more likely a less strict set of conditions. Much more business in the uk is still operating plus schools and unis. And for England we have just passed week 2, so would hope/expect to see the impacts over the next couple of weeks. I also think there was a rush to buy stuff and socialise in the days up to lockdown which has skewed the data over the last week.
The left are absolutely hell bent on stopping Priti Patel from being next PM aren't they.
Is that really such a bad idea?
Yes. You'd rather have Raab?
Rishi, Truss and Patel are three I'd be happiest seeing PM.
I would rather have a competent, business-oriented, one-nation conservatives than any of those three dolts.
I would have said that Rishi at least is all of those.
I understand where you are coming from, but at the minute he is simply hosing money around, something incompetent Labour Chancellors used to do so it is not really that much of a skill.
However, he has allowed himself to be associated with Johnson and the incompetent-but-loyal brigade, so on that basis Sunak will either do anything to get promoted or Johnson knows Sunak has little ability and is no threat.
Tarnish by association, but they do say that you can judge character by friends someone keeps.......
Not everyone is happy when you spray money around, because as soon as you start, anybody who misses out is immediately pissed off....
The left are absolutely hell bent on stopping Priti Patel from being next PM aren't they.
Is that really such a bad idea?
Yes. You'd rather have Raab?
Rishi, Truss and Patel are three I'd be happiest seeing PM.
I would rather have a competent, business-oriented, one-nation conservatives than any of those three dolts.
I would have said that Rishi at least is all of those.
A Brexciter by definition can't be a one-nation conservative, unless one is a Little Englander, surely.
Interested in your comments on Mr Gove by the way. Exactly why I was unsure how he was regarded by the public till I found that survey data. He does have something between his ears which is actually connected to his larynx.
He's a politician so by definition he can be an arse but I remember vividly his contribution to the Leveson inquiry, for me it was a highlight of a deeply depressing process.
Heard Obama interview on R4 this morning. It made be all nostalgic for the days when we had politicians capable of being articulate and thinking in complete sentences. The man wasn't a great success as President, he achieved far less than might have been hoped, but my goodness can he speak.
Am i the only one on here who thinks he was a superb president?
Phenomenal domestic policy achievements. Probably an A- president. The best since probably Truman/FDR.
All this nonsense has had virtually no impact on his approval ratings. If making a failed coup attempt doesnt even move the needle perhaps it really is time for the US to split into two or more different countries.
Heard Obama interview on R4 this morning. It made be all nostalgic for the days when we had politicians capable of being articulate and thinking in complete sentences. The man wasn't a great success as President, he achieved far less than might have been hoped, but my goodness can he speak.
Am i the only one on here who thinks he was a superb president?
Phenomenal domestic policy achievements. Probably an A- president. The best since probably Truman/FDR.
No. I rated him too. By comparison with the ones before and after. Just being a non-white Prez was a great achievement and utterly needed to try and keep that country together.
The left are absolutely hell bent on stopping Priti Patel from being next PM aren't they.
Is that really such a bad idea?
Yes. You'd rather have Raab?
Rishi, Truss and Patel are three I'd be happiest seeing PM.
I would rather have a competent, business-oriented, one-nation conservatives than any of those three dolts.
I would have said that Rishi at least is all of those.
I understand where you are coming from, but at the minute he is simply hosing money around, something incompetent Labour Chancellors used to do so it is not really that much of a skill.
However, he has allowed himself to be associated with Johnson and the incompetent-but-loyal brigade, so on that basis Sunak will either do anything to get promoted or Johnson knows Sunak has little ability and is no threat.
Tarnish by association, but they do say that you can judge character by friends someone keeps.......
I would say that almost uniquely of government departments the Treasury has had a consistently good pandemic. It may not be Rishi of course, it may be the fact that they tend to get the brightest civil servants, but their schemes have been innovative, fast and very well administered compared with the rest (admittedly an extremely low bar).
He is clearly very bright himself and speaks well. He has many tougher days ahead but so far he has been far more effective than other members of the Cabinet.
Northern Ireland going into two week lockdown but schools remaining open
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
Lots of lockdown twists and turns to come before Christmas.
Do you think Drakeford will try to sneak in another lockdown before Christmas?
I think Boris will put all of England on Tier 2 minimum from 3 Dec so we will have non essential retail, maybe pubs and restaurants but at this stage anything could happen.
Drakeford will only do it if he has to because he made a promise the fire break was a one off
Heard Obama interview on R4 this morning. It made be all nostalgic for the days when we had politicians capable of being articulate and thinking in complete sentences. The man wasn't a great success as President, he achieved far less than might have been hoped, but my goodness can he speak.
Am i the only one on here who thinks he was a superb president?
Phenomenal domestic policy achievements. Probably an A- president. The best since probably Truman/FDR.
You mean things has the horribly flawed obamacare which resulted in lots of poorer americans having hours reduced so the company didnt have to supply health insurance and at the same time had to pay out money under threat of a fine due to the legislation? A stunning triumph....I know many of my american friends would disagree
Heard Obama interview on R4 this morning. It made be all nostalgic for the days when we had politicians capable of being articulate and thinking in complete sentences. The man wasn't a great success as President, he achieved far less than might have been hoped, but my goodness can he speak.
Am i the only one on here who thinks he was a superb president?
Phenomenal domestic policy achievements. Probably an A- president. The best since probably Truman/FDR.
Besides Obamacare and failing to convince RBG to retire allowing Trump to replace her with an arch conservative what exactly were his domestic achievements?
The left are absolutely hell bent on stopping Priti Patel from being next PM aren't they.
Is that really such a bad idea?
Yes. You'd rather have Raab?
Rishi, Truss and Patel are three I'd be happiest seeing PM.
I would rather have a competent, business-oriented, one-nation conservatives than any of those three dolts.
I would have said that Rishi at least is all of those.
I understand where you are coming from, but at the minute he is simply hosing money around, something incompetent Labour Chancellors used to do so it is not really that much of a skill.
However, he has allowed himself to be associated with Johnson and the incompetent-but-loyal brigade, so on that basis Sunak will either do anything to get promoted or Johnson knows Sunak has little ability and is no threat.
Tarnish by association, but they do say that you can judge character by friends someone keeps.......
Not everyone is happy when you spray money around, because as soon as you start, anybody who misses out is immediately pissed off....
Heard Obama interview on R4 this morning. It made be all nostalgic for the days when we had politicians capable of being articulate and thinking in complete sentences. The man wasn't a great success as President, he achieved far less than might have been hoped, but my goodness can he speak.
He's apparently ruffled some feathers among Congress Party fans in India, after referring in his memoir to Rahul Gandhi as having the air of a "nervous student"
Northern Ireland going into two week lockdown but schools remaining open
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
Lots of lockdown twists and turns to come before Christmas.
Do you think Drakeford will try to sneak in another lockdown before Christmas?
I think Boris will put all of England on Tier 2 minimum from 3 Dec so we will have non essential retail, maybe pubs and restaurants but at this stage anything could happen.
Drakeford will only do it if he has to because he made a promise the fire break was a one off
Quite possibly. But he can now rely on the extra furlough provided by Rishi.
Arlene in particular has lost all credibility in NI with her party opposing lockdown last week then bringing it in next week!
The left are absolutely hell bent on stopping Priti Patel from being next PM aren't they.
Is that really such a bad idea?
Yes. You'd rather have Raab?
Rishi, Truss and Patel are three I'd be happiest seeing PM.
I would rather have a competent, business-oriented, one-nation conservatives than any of those three dolts.
I would have said that Rishi at least is all of those.
I understand where you are coming from, but at the minute he is simply hosing money around, something incompetent Labour Chancellors used to do so it is not really that much of a skill.
However, he has allowed himself to be associated with Johnson and the incompetent-but-loyal brigade, so on that basis Sunak will either do anything to get promoted or Johnson knows Sunak has little ability and is no threat.
Tarnish by association, but they do say that you can judge character by friends someone keeps.......
Not everyone is happy when you spray money around, because as soon as you start, anybody who misses out is immediately pissed off....
Northern Ireland going into two week lockdown but schools remaining open
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
I fear the big Christmas relaxation will turn into the a similar disaster to the big summer vacation relaxation.
With 2, more than likely 3 vaccines basically ready to roll, can't we all just wait a few more months did granny has had her shot.
Yep. Minimalist Christmas this year. Just the 5 of us and toast the grandparents on Zoom. It is too risky to do much else on current numbers.
With Thanksgiving next weekend giving us an indication.
I honestly don't get it. Yes of course we all want to see loved ones, but one day isn't that important when we know in 2-3 months we will be able to without fear of killing them off.
Everyone I know says they're sick of hearing about Christmas and are happy to have a quiet week off.
I suspect, that like foreign holidays in the summer, the irresponsible are going to ignore restrictions before, during and after Christmas.
I think for most it will be a quiet one. It is going to be devastating for both retail and hospitality though. They need a good Christmas to pay the Q1 rent.
Hopefully all clear by Burns Night.
I've already heard from several people that they are planning to do a normal xmas and "the government can get stuffed".
"I do want to emphasise that I’m in the business of testing for Covid. I do want to emphasise that positive test results do not – underlined in neon – mean a clinical infection. It’s simply driving public hysteria and all testing should stop unless you’re presenting to hospital with some respiratory problem."
Dr Roger Hodkinson, medical specialist in pathology
(Quoted on lockdownsceptics)
Bloody idiots.
This false negative bullshit is so patently false why I they still sharing it?
Public hysteria is happening because hospitals are getting flooded and hundreds a day are dying. Not because of testing numbers. Muppets.
Because lockdownsceptics can be summed up as follows:
“But I don’t WANT it to be true! I don’t WANT my life disrupted! I want everything to be back to normal, why can’t things be normal, I liked them when they were normal, so it can’t be true, it can’t be true, it can’t be true, Say it’s not true. Say it’s not true! SAY IT’S NOT TRUE!”
That’s really about it in a nutshell. Toby Young wants it to be not true and he doesn’t like it and he doesn’t like masks so it can’t be true and masks must be wrong. And his readers want the same thing, so they share what they want to be the case, and because they get to reinforce what each other is saying, it must be the case, right? The utter lack of consistency, the total failure of every single prediction or case they’ve ever made, the obvious incoherence and staggering illogic, irrationality, and innumeracy can just get glossed over by that overwhelming desire for denial.
"I do want to emphasise that I’m in the business of testing for Covid. I do want to emphasise that positive test results do not – underlined in neon – mean a clinical infection. It’s simply driving public hysteria and all testing should stop unless you’re presenting to hospital with some respiratory problem."
Dr Roger Hodkinson, medical specialist in pathology
(Quoted on lockdownsceptics)
Another member of Team Ostrich. The best thing is for the public not to be concerned while tens of thousands die, who would not have died otherwise. And it's best for asymptomatic carers and nurses to be unaware that they are spreading the disease to vulnerable people. What a twit.
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
When it comes to it, if people think Indy will result in higher taxes/reduced services, the current enthusiasm will drain away somewhat. Simples. There really is not much of an answer to questions like the currency and the deficit. Covid and Nicola's management of it is dominating perceptions. Won't be like that for ever.
Idly hypothesising why folk will still vote No in any indy referendum while happily applauding a despised Tory pm for being too cowardly to give Scots the chance to put it to the test is quite a thing.
Sturgeon would never call a vote if all the polls showed she was bound to lose and it was her right (not Westminster's) to withhold that vote - and she would do this even if Scots wanted a vote.
It's just realpolitik. No politician will call an epochal plebisicite which they will very likely lose, thus ending their careers.
So cut the cant. Boris is doing what any politician would do, including any Nat. He will drag it out til 2024, then the Nats need the Labour party to win - weakly - and accede to indyref2. That scenario seems quite likely.
Hypotheisising about Sturgeon having the 'right' to decide on a vote is it? Your standard tin-eared blethers about Scotland ignore the fact Sturgeon fully supported a vote when indy was very much likely to lose, and so it transpired.
It's obvious you lads are reduced to obfuscating with suppositions and what ifs because you've no other defence left. Though there's always the HYUFD option of getting the Black & Tans II in and truncheoning grannies I guess.
None of this blethering refutes the fact that I am right. And you know it. HMG will refuse indyref2 until 2024
I'm not denying he can and may very well do it, but I thought we were arguing about BJ therefore being a cowardly, undemocratic twat, and those cheerleaders of him in this being smeared with decent dollops of cowardly, undemocratic twattishness?
Northern Ireland going into two week lockdown but schools remaining open
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
I fear the big Christmas relaxation will turn into the a similar disaster to the big summer vacation relaxation.
With 2, more than likely 3 vaccines basically ready to roll, can't we all just wait a few more months did granny has had her shot.
Yep. Minimalist Christmas this year. Just the 5 of us and toast the grandparents on Zoom. It is too risky to do much else on current numbers.
With Thanksgiving next weekend giving us an indication.
I honestly don't get it. Yes of course we all want to see loved ones, but one day isn't that important when we know in 2-3 months we will be able to without fear of killing them off.
Everyone I know says they're sick of hearing about Christmas and are happy to have a quiet week off.
I suspect, that like foreign holidays in the summer, the irresponsible are going to ignore restrictions before, during and after Christmas.
I think for most it will be a quiet one. It is going to be devastating for both retail and hospitality though. They need a good Christmas to pay the Q1 rent.
Hopefully all clear by Burns Night.
I've already heard from several people that they are planning to do a normal xmas and "the government can get stuffed".
I expect so. If other people want to put their families at risk, then they cannot easily be stopped.
The left are absolutely hell bent on stopping Priti Patel from being next PM aren't they.
Is that really such a bad idea?
Yes. You'd rather have Raab?
Rishi, Truss and Patel are three I'd be happiest seeing PM.
I would rather have a competent, business-oriented, one-nation conservatives than any of those three dolts.
I would have said that Rishi at least is all of those.
I understand where you are coming from, but at the minute he is simply hosing money around, something incompetent Labour Chancellors used to do so it is not really that much of a skill.
However, he has allowed himself to be associated with Johnson and the incompetent-but-loyal brigade, so on that basis Sunak will either do anything to get promoted or Johnson knows Sunak has little ability and is no threat.
Tarnish by association, but they do say that you can judge character by friends someone keeps.......
I would say that almost uniquely of government departments the Treasury has had a consistently good pandemic. It may not be Rishi of course, it may be the fact that they tend to get the brightest civil servants, but their schemes have been innovative, fast and very well administered compared with the rest (admittedly an extremely low bar).
He is clearly very bright himself and speaks well. He has many tougher days ahead but so far he has been far more effective than other members of the Cabinet.
Perhaps the Treasury can be said to have had a good pandemic once they have cleared up the mess, balanced the books and paid the money back say down to a national debt of 45% of GDP.
When the pandemic struck they hadn't even done the completion of balancing the books or started paying the money back that was borrowed in the financial crash. That was 12 years ago. The auguries are not great.
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
When it comes to it, if people think Indy will result in higher taxes/reduced services, the current enthusiasm will drain away somewhat. Simples. There really is not much of an answer to questions like the currency and the deficit. Covid and Nicola's management of it is dominating perceptions. Won't be like that for ever.
Idly hypothesising why folk will still vote No in any indy referendum while happily applauding a despised Tory pm for being too cowardly to give Scots the chance to put it to the test is quite a thing.
Sturgeon would never call a vote if all the polls showed she was bound to lose and it was her right (not Westminster's) to withhold that vote - and she would do this even if Scots wanted a vote.
It's just realpolitik. No politician will call an epochal plebisicite which they will very likely lose, thus ending their careers.
So cut the cant. Boris is doing what any politician would do, including any Nat. He will drag it out til 2024, then the Nats need the Labour party to win - weakly - and accede to indyref2. That scenario seems quite likely.
Hypotheisising about Sturgeon having the 'right' to decide on a vote is it? Your standard tin-eared blethers about Scotland ignore the fact Sturgeon fully supported a vote when indy was very much likely to lose, and so it transpired.
It's obvious you lads are reduced to obfuscating with suppositions and what ifs because you've no other defence left. Though there's always the HYUFD option of getting the Black & Tans II in and truncheoning grannies I guess.
None of this blethering refutes the fact that I am right. And you know it. HMG will refuse indyref2 until 2024
I'm not denying he can and may very well do it, but I thought we were arguing about BJ therefore being a cowardly, undemocratic twat, and those cheerleaders of him in this being smeared with decent dollops of cowardly, undemocratic twattishness?
Yes, that's not entirely unfair. I was talking politics, not morals
Heard Obama interview on R4 this morning. It made be all nostalgic for the days when we had politicians capable of being articulate and thinking in complete sentences. The man wasn't a great success as President, he achieved far less than might have been hoped, but my goodness can he speak.
Am i the only one on here who thinks he was a superb president?
Phenomenal domestic policy achievements. Probably an A- president. The best since probably Truman/FDR.
You mean things has the horribly flawed obamacare which resulted in lots of poorer americans having hours reduced so the company didnt have to supply health insurance and at the same time had to pay out money under threat of a fine due to the legislation? A stunning triumph....I know many of my american friends would disagree
That was an unintended consequence which said far more about the companies than Obama.
Sadly for most people prices and convinience trumped decency so the companies got away with it.
It has to be said though that most countries are finding lockdown II a lot less effective than lockdown 1 including our own. After 3 weeks of lockdown these are pretty modest falls compared with what happened in most countries in April. Compliance is now a real issue.
They aren't locking down anywhere near as hard as lockdown 1.
Heard Obama interview on R4 this morning. It made be all nostalgic for the days when we had politicians capable of being articulate and thinking in complete sentences. The man wasn't a great success as President, he achieved far less than might have been hoped, but my goodness can he speak.
Am i the only one on here who thinks he was a superb president?
Phenomenal domestic policy achievements. Probably an A- president. The best since probably Truman/FDR.
He was very good domestically - though he completely failed to cement any kind of organisational legacy in the Democratic party at the state level - but his foreign policy was mediocre.
Comments
It'd be like deliberately and voluntarily going over the top in 1918. Or sending them over the top.
Lawyers are going to have a field day, not to mention some of their clients.
I suspect, that like foreign holidays in the summer, the irresponsible are going to ignore restrictions before, during and after Christmas.
If those three are lightweights then you pick three from this Cabinet who are better in your eyes?
But yes, great speaker, and a man of goodwill and intelligence.
The idea that it's either immediate dismissal or nothing is a very warped conceit.
Not sure where I start with that.
It's obvious you lads are reduced to obfuscating with suppositions and what ifs because you've no other defence left. Though there's always the HYUFD option of getting the Black & Tans II in and truncheoning grannies I guess.
So the 2nd time, she gets a warning...
Hopefully all clear by Burns Night.
Even in the public sector bullying is shockingly common in my experience and there are always ways to ensure the process doesn't remove the offenders.
Hi LadyG it's David Cameron here.
Dr Roger Hodkinson, medical specialist in pathology
(Quoted on lockdownsceptics)
For the purposes of this scenario it has to be someone in the current cabinet - obviously I know you probably wouldn't choose that in an ideal world.
This false negative bullshit is so patently false why I they still sharing it?
Public hysteria is happening because hospitals are getting flooded and hundreds a day are dying. Not because of testing numbers. Muppets.
Interested in your comments on Mr Gove by the way. Exactly why I was unsure how he was regarded by the public till I found that survey data. He does have something between his ears which is actually connected to his larynx.
https://youtu.be/BO8EpfyCG2Y
However, he has allowed himself to be associated with Johnson and the incompetent-but-loyal brigade, so on that basis Sunak will either do anything to get promoted or Johnson knows Sunak has little ability and is no threat.
Tarnish by association, but they do say that you can judge character by friends someone keeps.......
https://twitter.com/bigdaddybunce/status/1329531439554179072?s=19
Phenomenal domestic policy achievements. Probably an A- president. The best since probably Truman/FDR.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo
As for the ports: stock up on essentials, unless you are desperately keen on fitting into Speedos/bikini by the summer.
He is clearly very bright himself and speaks well. He has many tougher days ahead but so far he has been far more effective than other members of the Cabinet.
Arlene in particular has lost all credibility in NI with her party opposing lockdown last week then bringing it in next week!
“But I don’t WANT it to be true! I don’t WANT my life disrupted! I want everything to be back to normal, why can’t things be normal, I liked them when they were normal, so it can’t be true, it can’t be true, it can’t be true, Say it’s not true. Say it’s not true! SAY IT’S NOT TRUE!”
That’s really about it in a nutshell. Toby Young wants it to be not true and he doesn’t like it and he doesn’t like masks so it can’t be true and masks must be wrong. And his readers want the same thing, so they share what they want to be the case, and because they get to reinforce what each other is saying, it must be the case, right? The utter lack of consistency, the total failure of every single prediction or case they’ve ever made, the obvious incoherence and staggering illogic, irrationality, and innumeracy can just get glossed over by that overwhelming desire for denial.
--AS
He’s always behaved as though he’s special.
When the pandemic struck they hadn't even done the completion of balancing the books or started paying the money back that was borrowed in the financial crash. That was 12 years ago. The auguries are not great.
Sadly for most people prices and convinience trumped decency so the companies got away with it.